apply_migration_patch

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the four-stage validation pipeline, including destructive write protection and field whitelisting, which goes beyond a generic 'update' description. It does not detail error handling or return values, but the output schema presumably covers that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a clear bulleted list of validation steps. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and absence of annotations, the description covers the critical behavioral context (validation pipeline, write protection). The existence of an output schema handles return values. It stops short of mentioning force's role explicitly or potential error conditions, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning by explaining that patch_json is subject to field whitelist, schema compliance, destructive write protection, and cross-field consistency checks. This helps an agent understand constraints on patch_json beyond the raw schema. The 'force' parameter is implicitly tied to the destructive write protection validation, adding contextual value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Apply a validated normalized patch to update a single contest.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like bulk_apply_migrations (single vs. bulk) and update_document (contest-specific validation pipeline).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool by emphasizing the validation pipeline and 'single contest' scope, which contrasts with bulk alternatives. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from update_document and bulk_apply_migrations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.